I think it would be tough to make extortion out of what was said; but either way, that would be a criminal matter.
I find these comments looking for a law other than defamation that might apply a bit strange, since the judge was specifically ruling in connection with a possible defamation suit. Even if criminal charges could be brought based on what was said, those charges would not be related to any possible defamation action, would not be at the mother's discretion, and would have their own built-in procedures for deciding if and when anonymity goes away.
Pretending the words don't mean what everyone reading them knows they mean is the wrong approach. Trying to convince people to say that they might mean something else by insulting those who jump directly to the meaning that was clearly intended when the words were written? Ancient rhetorical trick, not even an A for effort.
If it's 1960, and I'm with a group of guys in white hoods, and finding a black man I say "fetch a rope", I don't get to later claim "maybe I was just offering to help the poor guy with his knot-tying merit badge". Social context does, in fact, matter.
There are plenty of valid ways to qusetion the legal standing of the mother; if you would choose from among those to expect a judge or 12 jurors to think 'do you often invite men you know only from the internet to your house, or do they usually invite you over' to mean anything other than 'heh heh, you have gay sex with guys you meet online', you're fooling yourself.
It certainly wasn't graphic. It clearly wasn't intended as enticement of a minor. It may have crossed a legal line based on the protective attitude the law takes toward minors, sex, and the Internet. That's a different question than where exactly the line should be. Then again, those laws are criminal in nature and would not involve the mother looking at the identity and deciding whether to sue. Whether that line was crossed would be a matter for the prosecutor's office.
This is about defamation law.
Anyone who was a teenager in the 90's or later knows exactly what hipcheck16 was doing - taking a cheap shot in a flamewar. Winning a defamation suit over that would be nearly impossible. Regardless of procedural matters - should the suit have been brought first, etc. - the judge is wrong to take away the speaker's anonymity in connection with a possible defamation suit unless such a suit is likely to succeed, which it should not be.
I'm pretty sure from your comment here that we disagree on the basic nature of language, and on what is the highest authority on "correct" usage. But setting that aside, I'll play your little game.
Can you show me a dictionary in which impact is not a verb? I am going to stipulate that the Scrabble dictionary doesn't count, since it serves its purpose by listing at most one part of speech and definition per word.
While you're pondering that, here's the entry at dictionary.com, which not only includes impact as a verb but lists it as dating back to the late 1700's, in the same time frame as the noun, from the same origin. It notes that there are relatively recent senses of the verb (neither of which is the one used in TFS/A in the first place), but that even they are considered formally correct.
Frankly, all sources I've found other than your teeth seem unanimous on this one.
Hmmm... well, I realize that checking a dictionary first would've been a lot of work, but here's what m-w has to say about it. Note that the first entry is for the verb "impact".
Trying to follow your logic... it used to be illegal to do stem cell research, but now it isn't. When it was illegal, the grounds were religiously inspired. So it sounds to me like religious influence is on a down-tick, at least in regard to supressing science.
As popular as it is to bash the modern religious establishment, and imperfect as its relationship to science is, in a longer-view historical context the trend is toward less religious disruption of research. Today they sometimes try to limit what science can do, and sometimes have short-term success in some parts of the world. Hundreds of years ago it was generally accepted that science was bounded by the dictates of religion, and suppression enjoyed long-term success on a global scale.
In short - when someone actually pushes to block this sort of research, then I'll be happy to stand against them. In the mean time, there's something disgustingly Glen Beck-esque about this whole "I bit people I don't like will now say X" nonsense.
I don't know your intentions, but you seem to be insenuating a shift in the approach medicne is taking. I'd say there's not really a change.
Big breakthroughs in early medicne were things like antibiotics. Because the diseases they treat are caused by bacteria, and because you can eliminate all of the bacteria causing a given illness, cure is a reasonable goal.
Viral or fungal infections, or cancers, are similarly things where it makes sense to hope for a cure. Any condition that's caused by somethign attacking your otherwise-functional body might potentially be cured.
But as our lives get longer, and the number of deaths attributed to bacteria, etc. decrease, more and more of the conditions that have our attention are caused by some abnormal function of the body itself. The body is a complex and dynamic place; it's a bit much to hope that acute administration of a chemical will forever alter whatever defect is causing a problem. Suppose, for example, that the cause is ultimately genetic; then every cell is propagating the root cause. If you can interfere with the operation of the disease so as to eliminate - or sometimes even just reduce - symptoms, that's a great result; but it probably does mean you'll be on a maintenance medicine.
Modern medicine is still looking for cures, but the problems we're facing are a lot harder now that the lowest-hanging fruit has been taken.
I'm not aware of any detailed break-down of how much of that power we can pull from the environment and redirect to our purposes without seriously screwing things up.
I am aware that the amount of solar power that falls on the Earth is dwarfed by the amount of solar power that doesn't fall on the Earth.
"In spinal cord injuries, scar tissue forms and that is the end of the story. Special chemicals form that stop the body's cells from moving in and removing the scar tissue and then allowing the healing process to start."
I'm assuming this is one of those "the body does this beacuse its better in normal circumstances, but in the case of severe trauma it's not so good" kind of things... but can anyone clarify why the body's normal healing process is blocked for spinal injuries?
Why, why, why must people who might otherwise help argue the case that today's copyright is broken spoil their credibility with exageration and mis-statement of facts?
1 - Not every person on Earth benefits from public domain music. Some are too damned busy trying to remain alive.
2 - The Beatle's copyrights do not funnel every penny made off of sale of their music to the surviving band members.
Yes, their music should be out of copyright by now. You'd be a greater help to the cause of copyright reform that would make that happen by sticking to reality and sounding like you've thought the issue through, than by spouting off feel-good numbers that make it sound like you're wearing blinders so you can reach the conclusion you want.
"'Being able to see your own code doesn't prove anything...'
Sure it does. They cannot record the correct code unless your ballot has been processed. It doesn't mean that your vote was actually counted, though."
I'm not in the mood for literalists this morning. If you insist, I suppsoe I could've phrased that "...doens't prove anything useful".
You'rr using a very loose definition of "processed". It proves that someone looked at the ballot long enoguh to copy the code onto a web site.
"Nope, can't do that. Not with this ballot anyway. If you reveal which codes link to which candidates, you can prove how you've voted. That's exactly the type of problem they're trying to avoid."
No, you can't prove who you voted for, because you can't prove what code showed up on your ballot. "Oh, sure, I voted for your candidate; my code was 375. No, no, of course I didn't just look up a random code for your candidate on the list after the election; trust me and pay up!"
Think about it - no matter what, I'm going to know my code and I'm going to know what vote my code means. What's necessary is for one of those facts to be unknown to anyone but me. You're assuming that has to be the 2nd one, but it doens't.
"There are no viewpoints here. Either you have facts, or you have nothing."
Wrong. If that were the case, there would be a moderation option of "-1 Not Factual". This forum's rules are pretty open; people get to express their views whether they are right or wrong, scientific or anecdotal, fact or opinion. Disagreement is handled through response/discussion, not censorship.
Censorship (moderation) is used to control behaviors that would harm the quality of discussion. If you believe that expressing alternative viewpoints hurts discussion, then public discourse isn't for you.
"Your parent pointed out facts."...but also started his comment by asking for mis-use of the moderation system to suppress a comment that does not meet any legitimate down-modding criteria. It would appear the community believes that calling for moderation abuse, ironically, does meet down-modding criteria.
As you probably know (but possibly won't admit even to yourself), the reason most tests don't get past planning is that even though Randi bends over backwards to create reproducable tests that meet the candidate's requirements for displaying their ability, they always seem able to cook up one more excuse why the test just has to allow them enough wiggle-room that they could be cheating.
If you had $1M on the line, you wouldn't allow that. Why should Randi?
Most likely the setup of the test would be - blind test to identify which of two otherwise-identical sound systems uses Cable X and which one uses generic cables. The test is whether you really get better sound quality with Cable X.
Depending on the reasoning Cable X's manufacturer gives for the alleged improved sound quality, you may or may not recognize the claim as paranormal; but assuming that all scientifically-acknowledged factors affecting sound qualty can be controled for in the selection of the generic cables, that kind of thing could show up in a JREF test. Similar things have.
Being able to see your own code doesn't prove anything. Presumably, though, that's what the subversion repository is for.
Now I don't know what exactly they put in the repository, or how it's meant to be used. But let's take a simple example of something one might do: Post all of the codes that were counted, and which vote they represent.
Now, I can download the repository, confirm that the number of codes attributed to "Yes" is greater than the number of codes attributed to "No", that the list contains my code, and that my code is attributed correctly to either "Yes" or "No" (or whatever the voting choices were). So can anybody else. To not count someone's vote, you have to hope they don't download the data and check.
Fraud-proof? Nope. In a close race I might be able to stuff the ballot box with codes/votes that weren't on anybody's ballot. Not intractable, just shows that the above is an over-simplification.
The interesting thing about the Florida debacle isn't that it was a unique breakdown in our voting system. Quite the opposite - the interesting thing is that it goes on all the time but usually nobody notices.
Florida's count wasn't the worst in the 2000 election, even. It just happened that, in the order results were tallied and reported, Florida's was perceived to be the one screw-up that was deciding the election. Gore chose to make political hay over it, and while it didn't work out, it threw a spotlight on one instance of a problem that is ever-present in any large-scale vote, and that should have as much attention as is required to correct.
For the record - I don't know or care who the "legitimate" winner of the FL vote was. I am not a Bush supporter, but I do think Gore was in the wrong in that you can't pick and choose where to set more stringent counting standards, especially after the vote has been taken. And that's the point - what we should want are better counting standards everywhere, in every election.
So, for relying on a nuclear strategy that worked (but that you personally don't think makes sense), our leaders are on the same level as using divining rods to look for bombs?
Looking at the headline, you would think this new ocean were poised to spring into existance in a sudden burst of volcanic chaos. In human terms, that's clearly not what we're looking at - they're talking about a million-year process.
The clear conclusion is that this story was written by an entity with a much courser view of time than our own. Sure, 40 years sounds like old news to you, but to them it must be a blink of an eye. Barely enough time to bring the information to press, even.
Somehow I failed to work in the phrase "insensitive clod"...
Yeah, yeah, the big nasty government has been waiting for the day when it could piss you off by putting information you don't want on your fruit. They just couldn't find a way to put that information there until now.
We were counting on them never hearing of adhesive labels, but now they have lasers! Damn you to hell, lasers!
Is it a violation of the customer agreement? You should probably read the agreement before asserting that it is.
Is it false advertising? Better take a look at the laws governing advertising before asserting that it is.
"X down/Y up for part of the time, X1/Y1 the rest of the time" may not be what you thought you were buying, but then maybe you should've learned by now not to trust the marketing hype.
"Actually the only real solution to distracted driving is ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS "
Yeah, just like how aggressive enforcement of the law keeps people from speeding, right? Oh, wait, it doesn't, because most speeders excuse themselves and blame the cop for giving them a ticket.
If I had suggested that the solution were a new law, your reaction would at least make sense; but you would still be wrong. Enforcement would be a nice idea, but it won't solve the problem.
You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted. Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving? Eating while driving? Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?
These behaviors are all dangerous to bystanders, and in any are with decent distracted driving laws they are all illegal; but those laws are almost never enforced, presumably because they aren't the big money-maker that speeding tickets are.
Also, while you can block radio signals into and out of a car - and indeed there are those who think certain window tinting requirements in CA might inadvertantly have that effect - this will probably only create a market for external antenna kits.
The only real solution to distracted driving is education. Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.
Could be underinflated tires. Or overinflated. Or normal, actually.
The reading is based (indirectly) on the rotation of the tires and an estimate of how far you will go with each rotation. In all circumstances, tire motion is a combination of rolling and slipping. Differences in tire tread, road surface, weather conditions, all can impact the actual distance traveled.
If you calibrate the spedometer for (tire circumferance * tire revs / hour), then you will have an upper bound on speed. That is, outside of a braking skid there's basically no way you're exceeding that speed. But, it also means the reading will be high in all practical circumstances.
To those who've noted that GPS instant readings and roadside radar are also imperfect - that's true; hell, I've had my GPS claim I managed a top speed over 70MPH on a bicycle once (which I certainly did not). But if the two readings are agreeing I'll take that as higher-confidence than the spedometer.
What you and several other posters are missing is, TFS says specifically "you can read the original leaked document". Those words are a link, even. But to what do they link? The blog -- which oddly enough is not "the original linked document".
When someone promises something and doesn't deliver, I instantly stop trusting them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would be tough to make extortion out of what was said; but either way, that would be a criminal matter.
I find these comments looking for a law other than defamation that might apply a bit strange, since the judge was specifically ruling in connection with a possible defamation suit. Even if criminal charges could be brought based on what was said, those charges would not be related to any possible defamation action, would not be at the mother's discretion, and would have their own built-in procedures for deciding if and when anonymity goes away.
The Universe is flat, fool!
Pretending the words don't mean what everyone reading them knows they mean is the wrong approach. Trying to convince people to say that they might mean something else by insulting those who jump directly to the meaning that was clearly intended when the words were written? Ancient rhetorical trick, not even an A for effort.
If it's 1960, and I'm with a group of guys in white hoods, and finding a black man I say "fetch a rope", I don't get to later claim "maybe I was just offering to help the poor guy with his knot-tying merit badge". Social context does, in fact, matter.
There are plenty of valid ways to qusetion the legal standing of the mother; if you would choose from among those to expect a judge or 12 jurors to think 'do you often invite men you know only from the internet to your house, or do they usually invite you over' to mean anything other than 'heh heh, you have gay sex with guys you meet online', you're fooling yourself.
It certainly wasn't graphic. It clearly wasn't intended as enticement of a minor. It may have crossed a legal line based on the protective attitude the law takes toward minors, sex, and the Internet. That's a different question than where exactly the line should be. Then again, those laws are criminal in nature and would not involve the mother looking at the identity and deciding whether to sue. Whether that line was crossed would be a matter for the prosecutor's office.
This is about defamation law.
Anyone who was a teenager in the 90's or later knows exactly what hipcheck16 was doing - taking a cheap shot in a flamewar. Winning a defamation suit over that would be nearly impossible. Regardless of procedural matters - should the suit have been brought first, etc. - the judge is wrong to take away the speaker's anonymity in connection with a possible defamation suit unless such a suit is likely to succeed, which it should not be.
I'm pretty sure from your comment here that we disagree on the basic nature of language, and on what is the highest authority on "correct" usage. But setting that aside, I'll play your little game.
Can you show me a dictionary in which impact is not a verb? I am going to stipulate that the Scrabble dictionary doesn't count, since it serves its purpose by listing at most one part of speech and definition per word.
While you're pondering that, here's the entry at dictionary.com, which not only includes impact as a verb but lists it as dating back to the late 1700's, in the same time frame as the noun, from the same origin. It notes that there are relatively recent senses of the verb (neither of which is the one used in TFS/A in the first place), but that even they are considered formally correct.
Frankly, all sources I've found other than your teeth seem unanimous on this one.
Hmmm... well, I realize that checking a dictionary first would've been a lot of work, but here's what m-w has to say about it. Note that the first entry is for the verb "impact".
Trying to follow your logic... it used to be illegal to do stem cell research, but now it isn't. When it was illegal, the grounds were religiously inspired. So it sounds to me like religious influence is on a down-tick, at least in regard to supressing science.
As popular as it is to bash the modern religious establishment, and imperfect as its relationship to science is, in a longer-view historical context the trend is toward less religious disruption of research. Today they sometimes try to limit what science can do, and sometimes have short-term success in some parts of the world. Hundreds of years ago it was generally accepted that science was bounded by the dictates of religion, and suppression enjoyed long-term success on a global scale.
In short - when someone actually pushes to block this sort of research, then I'll be happy to stand against them. In the mean time, there's something disgustingly Glen Beck-esque about this whole "I bit people I don't like will now say X" nonsense.
I don't know your intentions, but you seem to be insenuating a shift in the approach medicne is taking. I'd say there's not really a change.
Big breakthroughs in early medicne were things like antibiotics. Because the diseases they treat are caused by bacteria, and because you can eliminate all of the bacteria causing a given illness, cure is a reasonable goal.
Viral or fungal infections, or cancers, are similarly things where it makes sense to hope for a cure. Any condition that's caused by somethign attacking your otherwise-functional body might potentially be cured.
But as our lives get longer, and the number of deaths attributed to bacteria, etc. decrease, more and more of the conditions that have our attention are caused by some abnormal function of the body itself. The body is a complex and dynamic place; it's a bit much to hope that acute administration of a chemical will forever alter whatever defect is causing a problem. Suppose, for example, that the cause is ultimately genetic; then every cell is propagating the root cause. If you can interfere with the operation of the disease so as to eliminate - or sometimes even just reduce - symptoms, that's a great result; but it probably does mean you'll be on a maintenance medicine.
Modern medicine is still looking for cures, but the problems we're facing are a lot harder now that the lowest-hanging fruit has been taken.
I'm aware that Al Gore likes to say so.
I'm not aware of any detailed break-down of how much of that power we can pull from the environment and redirect to our purposes without seriously screwing things up.
I am aware that the amount of solar power that falls on the Earth is dwarfed by the amount of solar power that doesn't fall on the Earth.
"In spinal cord injuries, scar tissue forms and that is the end of the story. Special chemicals form that stop the body's cells from moving in and removing the scar tissue and then allowing the healing process to start."
I'm assuming this is one of those "the body does this beacuse its better in normal circumstances, but in the case of severe trauma it's not so good" kind of things... but can anyone clarify why the body's normal healing process is blocked for spinal injuries?
Why, why, why must people who might otherwise help argue the case that today's copyright is broken spoil their credibility with exageration and mis-statement of facts?
1 - Not every person on Earth benefits from public domain music. Some are too damned busy trying to remain alive.
2 - The Beatle's copyrights do not funnel every penny made off of sale of their music to the surviving band members.
Yes, their music should be out of copyright by now. You'd be a greater help to the cause of copyright reform that would make that happen by sticking to reality and sounding like you've thought the issue through, than by spouting off feel-good numbers that make it sound like you're wearing blinders so you can reach the conclusion you want.
"'Being able to see your own code doesn't prove anything...'
Sure it does. They cannot record the correct code unless your ballot has been processed. It doesn't mean that your vote was actually counted, though."
I'm not in the mood for literalists this morning. If you insist, I suppsoe I could've phrased that "...doens't prove anything useful".
You'rr using a very loose definition of "processed". It proves that someone looked at the ballot long enoguh to copy the code onto a web site.
"Nope, can't do that. Not with this ballot anyway. If you reveal which codes link to which candidates, you can prove how you've voted. That's exactly the type of problem they're trying to avoid."
No, you can't prove who you voted for, because you can't prove what code showed up on your ballot. "Oh, sure, I voted for your candidate; my code was 375. No, no, of course I didn't just look up a random code for your candidate on the list after the election; trust me and pay up!"
Think about it - no matter what, I'm going to know my code and I'm going to know what vote my code means. What's necessary is for one of those facts to be unknown to anyone but me. You're assuming that has to be the 2nd one, but it doens't.
If you can't read, don't try to quote me.
I didn't say censorship is wrong. I said censorship in this forum has a defined purpose.
Your parent stated "please down mod parent" because his parent was doing something that merits being censored. Your parent was not wrong. You are.
"There are no viewpoints here. Either you have facts, or you have nothing."
Wrong. If that were the case, there would be a moderation option of "-1 Not Factual". This forum's rules are pretty open; people get to express their views whether they are right or wrong, scientific or anecdotal, fact or opinion. Disagreement is handled through response/discussion, not censorship.
Censorship (moderation) is used to control behaviors that would harm the quality of discussion. If you believe that expressing alternative viewpoints hurts discussion, then public discourse isn't for you.
"Your parent pointed out facts." ...but also started his comment by asking for mis-use of the moderation system to suppress a comment that does not meet any legitimate down-modding criteria. It would appear the community believes that calling for moderation abuse, ironically, does meet down-modding criteria.
As you probably know (but possibly won't admit even to yourself), the reason most tests don't get past planning is that even though Randi bends over backwards to create reproducable tests that meet the candidate's requirements for displaying their ability, they always seem able to cook up one more excuse why the test just has to allow them enough wiggle-room that they could be cheating.
If you had $1M on the line, you wouldn't allow that. Why should Randi?
Most likely the setup of the test would be - blind test to identify which of two otherwise-identical sound systems uses Cable X and which one uses generic cables. The test is whether you really get better sound quality with Cable X.
Depending on the reasoning Cable X's manufacturer gives for the alleged improved sound quality, you may or may not recognize the claim as paranormal; but assuming that all scientifically-acknowledged factors affecting sound qualty can be controled for in the selection of the generic cables, that kind of thing could show up in a JREF test. Similar things have.
Being able to see your own code doesn't prove anything. Presumably, though, that's what the subversion repository is for.
Now I don't know what exactly they put in the repository, or how it's meant to be used. But let's take a simple example of something one might do: Post all of the codes that were counted, and which vote they represent.
Now, I can download the repository, confirm that the number of codes attributed to "Yes" is greater than the number of codes attributed to "No", that the list contains my code, and that my code is attributed correctly to either "Yes" or "No" (or whatever the voting choices were). So can anybody else. To not count someone's vote, you have to hope they don't download the data and check.
Fraud-proof? Nope. In a close race I might be able to stuff the ballot box with codes/votes that weren't on anybody's ballot. Not intractable, just shows that the above is an over-simplification.
Absolutely.
The interesting thing about the Florida debacle isn't that it was a unique breakdown in our voting system. Quite the opposite - the interesting thing is that it goes on all the time but usually nobody notices.
Florida's count wasn't the worst in the 2000 election, even. It just happened that, in the order results were tallied and reported, Florida's was perceived to be the one screw-up that was deciding the election. Gore chose to make political hay over it, and while it didn't work out, it threw a spotlight on one instance of a problem that is ever-present in any large-scale vote, and that should have as much attention as is required to correct.
For the record - I don't know or care who the "legitimate" winner of the FL vote was. I am not a Bush supporter, but I do think Gore was in the wrong in that you can't pick and choose where to set more stringent counting standards, especially after the vote has been taken. And that's the point - what we should want are better counting standards everywhere, in every election.
So, for relying on a nuclear strategy that worked (but that you personally don't think makes sense), our leaders are on the same level as using divining rods to look for bombs?
Speaking of bias...
Context.
Looking at the headline, you would think this new ocean were poised to spring into existance in a sudden burst of volcanic chaos. In human terms, that's clearly not what we're looking at - they're talking about a million-year process.
The clear conclusion is that this story was written by an entity with a much courser view of time than our own. Sure, 40 years sounds like old news to you, but to them it must be a blink of an eye. Barely enough time to bring the information to press, even.
Somehow I failed to work in the phrase "insensitive clod"...
Yeah, yeah, the big nasty government has been waiting for the day when it could piss you off by putting information you don't want on your fruit. They just couldn't find a way to put that information there until now.
We were counting on them never hearing of adhesive labels, but now they have lasers! Damn you to hell, lasers!
Is it a violation of the customer agreement? You should probably read the agreement before asserting that it is.
Is it false advertising? Better take a look at the laws governing advertising before asserting that it is.
"X down/Y up for part of the time, X1/Y1 the rest of the time" may not be what you thought you were buying, but then maybe you should've learned by now not to trust the marketing hype.
"Actually the only real solution to distracted driving is ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS "
Yeah, just like how aggressive enforcement of the law keeps people from speeding, right? Oh, wait, it doesn't, because most speeders excuse themselves and blame the cop for giving them a ticket.
If I had suggested that the solution were a new law, your reaction would at least make sense; but you would still be wrong. Enforcement would be a nice idea, but it won't solve the problem.
You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted. Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving? Eating while driving? Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?
These behaviors are all dangerous to bystanders, and in any are with decent distracted driving laws they are all illegal; but those laws are almost never enforced, presumably because they aren't the big money-maker that speeding tickets are.
Also, while you can block radio signals into and out of a car - and indeed there are those who think certain window tinting requirements in CA might inadvertantly have that effect - this will probably only create a market for external antenna kits.
The only real solution to distracted driving is education. Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.
Could be underinflated tires. Or overinflated. Or normal, actually.
The reading is based (indirectly) on the rotation of the tires and an estimate of how far you will go with each rotation. In all circumstances, tire motion is a combination of rolling and slipping. Differences in tire tread, road surface, weather conditions, all can impact the actual distance traveled.
If you calibrate the spedometer for (tire circumferance * tire revs / hour), then you will have an upper bound on speed. That is, outside of a braking skid there's basically no way you're exceeding that speed. But, it also means the reading will be high in all practical circumstances.
To those who've noted that GPS instant readings and roadside radar are also imperfect - that's true; hell, I've had my GPS claim I managed a top speed over 70MPH on a bicycle once (which I certainly did not). But if the two readings are agreeing I'll take that as higher-confidence than the spedometer.
What you and several other posters are missing is, TFS says specifically "you can read the original leaked document". Those words are a link, even. But to what do they link? The blog -- which oddly enough is not "the original linked document".
When someone promises something and doesn't deliver, I instantly stop trusting them.